The cases listed below appear in the most recent issue of ELR's Weekly Update. For cases previously reported, please use the filter on the left.
Volume 41, Issue 13
The Fourth Circuit upheld a lower court's fee award in favor of environmental groups in their CAA case against an energy company.
The Second Circuit affirmed a lower court decision that the parent corporation of nine manufactured gas plants (MGPs) is not an "operator" of those plants for purposes of CERCLA liability.
The Federal Circuit upheld a lower court decision awarding an energy company $42.7 million for the government's breach of contract relating to spent nuclear fuel (SNF) storage costs at one of the company's facilities.
A district court denied a triglyceride diesel fuel manufacturer's motion to preliminarily enjoin the American Society for Testing and Materials' (ATSM's) promulgation of a proposed new standard and guidelines for biofuels that would limit, if not bar, the use of triglyceride di
A district court held that a lumber company's CERCLA action against the former owner of the company's sawmill and plywood manufacturing plant for reimbursement of past and future cleanup costs associated with the site is not barred by contract.
A district court dismissed an insurance company's CERCLA §§107 and 112 claim for response costs incurred by one of its policy holders seeking to redevelop the site of a former aerospace manufacturing facility.
A district court held unconstitutional California legislation (SB 990) that prescribes cleanup rules that apply only to a former federal nuclear research and rocket testing facility and criminalizes any sale or disposition of the property until it is cleaned up in accordance with the standar
A district court dismissed a mining industry association's action challenging DOI Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) regulations allocating the burden of proof in five types of administrative proceedings under SMCRA.
A district court dismissed a fraud claim brought by a car wash operator against the seller of the property—an oil company—for requiring the operator to sign a document stating that he intended to use USTs on the property even though he had no such intent.
You must be an ELI Member to access the full content.
You are not logged in. To access this content: